This is a discussion on F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Post deleted...
gf is it possible to expand on this point?(My understanding of this is as below.)
Wedge tail will be the eyes and ears in the sky,passing info off to JSF,while JSF will act as a sensor and send info back to the wedge tail?
So "Wedge tail", "Aegis" and "Jorn" will all be able to communicate with one another,giving a picture of the battle space while directing JSF to attack targets?
I could be mistaken but I believe you are interested in an 'Oz' specific example. If that is the case, then perhaps a discussion on Vigilaire and related systems in the RAAF thread, or perhaps in the general ADF discussion thread might be worthwhile. That way the material can be discussed without derailing the F-35 thread.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
For the most part i was quoting the official government webpage and that info is 100% accurate.
However before you do so, please note that i wrote my reply from a Dutch perspective as here in the Netherlands the JSF program is causing havoc.
Cheers
Norway has after all quite robust economy, it will be interesting to see how other European countries will deal with this. I guess by cutting in the number of a/c, and the number of flight hours, just like in Norway, but some may have to cut harder than others.
While the APA was trying to make the F-111 into something its not, it still would have had a massive range and payload advantage over the F-35. The F-35 may have stealth, but it can't carry much ordinance and it can't carry it very far. I think the F-111 still has a place, maybe not in its original role, but it definitely still has a place.
In a practical sense when you consider load out, the ONLY advantage the F-111 had over the F-35 is unrefuelled range.
Given the F-111 was only capable of exploiting this range in uncontested airspace without being escorted, this range is irrelevant.
RAAF can go further now with Hornet, Super Hornet, KC-30A and JASSM / JSOW than it could with F-111 alone in reality.
There has been a lot of myths created by using high/slow to get max range, when in combat the f-111 was used low/fast
what is funny is that back in 1984 Dr Kopp said of the f-111
"TFX F-111A Specification Performance Maximum speed - SL1.2 Mach - at altitude 2.5 Mach
2.2 Mach Cruise speed (at altitude)
2.2 Mach Combat radius 800 nm 800 nm (540 nm)
Dash radius 210 nm 30 nm (200 nm)
needless to say the USA was still unhappy with the dash radius
Lol you kidding me so you are saying that the JSF will cost 71 -73 mil as per?
That would be amazing, considering that a F-16 cost 100 mil.
No offense the US and Dutch government " Reken Kamer or Finance calculations" have made a calculation and if the JSF where to be sold right now (Just for the sake of the argument we will assume thats its ready) then the JSF would cost over 298 Million euro(Bruto) per plane, and that does not include the prize per air hour and maintenance.
Another thing is that the first test bird sold to the Netherlands costed 98 million Euro, the second one is 190 million euro.
Just saying.
And this comes from the US and Netherlands government webpage itself.....so if you wish to challenge that be my guest lol
Anyway the calculation has been done over 2011 and 2012....and that SAR report has been the middle point of the EU debate as it was wishfull thinking specially after the release by the US government who wrote each individual partner that the JSF will increase another 20% .....
The new baseline forecasts the average cost of the F-35 fighter, including research and development (R&D) and inflation, at $135 million per plane, plus an additional $26 million for the F135 engine built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp.
EDIT 135 mil + 26 mil = 161 million per plane (And then you have to add the 20% that the US government released some days ago)
In 2012 dollars, the average cost of each single-seat, single-engine plane, including R&D, would be $112.5 million, plus $22 million for the engine.
EDIT: 112.5 Million + 22 Million = 134.5 million (Plus the added 20% per plane)
This is the first year that the government has separated out the cost of the plane and the engine, and comparison figures were not immediately available. Lockheed Martin has said the average cost of the plane will be around $65 million to $70 million, based on 2010 dollars.
Lockheed Martin declined comment on the new estimate, saying it had not yet received the Pentagon's latest report.
Lockheed spokesman Joe LaMarca said the company still believed the new fighter jet would cost the same or less to operate and maintain than the seven legacy warplanes it will replace, while offering far greater capabilities.
Personally i would agree to the statement that a JSF bird would cost around 120 million (Taking the average of the current estimates) but saying that it would cost: $71-73m is just laughable i mean ...nevermind no comment
Also in regards to the nations that are having problems with the JSF program, check the latest news: NOS Nieuws
Beatmaster, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink, as I said, the 2011 SAR $71-73m is FRP URF 2012 yr$ and I'm not going into LRIP and FRP or URF and APUC pricing, or even that partners and FMS don't pay for SDD increases as you seem to believe, believe what you wish to, I'm finished
Beatmaster, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink, as I said, the $71-73m is FRP URF and I'm not going into LRIP and FRP or URF and APUC pricing, or even that partners and FMS don't pay for SDD increases as you seem to believe, believe what you wish to, I'm finished
Buddy do not take this the wrong way, but if you challenge a poster there on the forum, then np but if a person proves you wrong, then its at least nice to say that you where wrong.
But sticking your head in the sand will not work.
The sources i provided are accurate and your report is not simple as.
End of discussion
Kind Regards Beatmaster
I was actually being very kind to those who are critical of the program and used the independent SAR, who's history has over-costed the f-35 estimate compared to the actual LRIP contract price when placed.
Buddy do not take this the wrong way, but if you challenge a poster there on the forum, then np but if a person proves you wrong, then its at least nice to say that you where wrong.
But sticking your head in the sand will not work.
The sources i provided are accurate and your report is not simple as.
End of discussion
Kind Regards Beatmaster
From the link you quoted:
"Defense analyst Loren Thompson said three quarters of the cost increases on the F-35 program were linked to government changes in the scope of the program, and the way it was estimating costs.
For instance, he said, the Pentagon initially planned to station the plane at 33 bases, but later changed the number to 49. It initially calculated operating costs over 30 years, but then chose a longer timeframe of 50 years, he said.
"The program costs appear to be rising much faster than they actually are because the government keeps changing how it calculates things," Thompson said."
it'd help if you read the entire article - the numbers they're tossing around are costs projected in 2012 dollars. Stand that on it's head and shoot back in time and tell folks that the £15m jets they were buying in 1982 are actually averaging £90m and you'd have an idea where that sits.
The numbers being bounced around in there are accounting shuffles to try and estimate the F35 program costs to the US - they're not useful in telling anyone (that's you, me, other folk on the forum) what the F35 will cost foreign customers and partners in the next four or five years.
Canada and Australia have both got solid $70m level of numbers as an average price, taking the first LRIP numbers through to the final production jets right at the end of the line. That's an actual "if we got our credit card out right now and bought these, how much.." number.